Any western architect who intends to design a house or an apartment basically will start from assumption of 'the primary human needs' of the future inhabitants. Essentially three components define our western concept of primary needs. First there are physical parameters, the measurements of the human body. Neufert has presented these aspects in great detail. Further there are physiological conditions, e.g. the need for protection of various kinds: sufficient light and air, hygiene etc. Finally, a standardised behaviour is assumed, requiring sufficient space for moving, working, eating, ablutions, leisure etc. In this context space is considered as a three dimensional, basically homogeneous and neutral condition. Depending on the given conditions, the program of walls and openings, installations and surfaces for movement, fittings and functional places designed by the architect, will be set relatively freely into this homogeneously conceived space.
Several years ago a study of the European Community concluded that the Japanese live in "rabbit cages". The study was based essentially on statistical research which showed that the average dwelling space for a family in urban agglomerations hardly amounts to 40 square meters. Great astonishment! "Why do two out of three Japanese affirm that they like their life and that in general they are content?" In view of the fact that in Europe today a corresponding family needs roughly 100 square meters - that is to say, two and a half times as much - one could ask the counter question: Do we waste space? Why does the average urban family in Japan manage with so much less dwelling surface and still feel comfortable? In such purely quantitative comparisons, it is often overlooked that spatial needs are closely related to the constructive design, and this is determined by the specific cultural tradition. To illustrate this point there is hardly any better example than that of Japan. Its architectural heritage and its dwelling culture developed under entirely different cultural and geographical conditions from those with which we are familiar.<2>
Unfortunately, there are practically no special fields or educational programs, such as 'ethnology of building' or 'architectural anthropology', at today's architectural schools. Western architectural theory is completely fixed on the Euro-Mediterranean history of art. Systematic comparison with non-European cultures could not only place in question our own basic assumptions regarding principles of design: it could also provide stimulating insights.
Influences of highly developed temple architecture of Chinese origin are evident since the 8th century, particularly in the residential and palace architecture (shin- denzukuri) of the Nara and Heian periods. During Kamakura and Muromachi periods, Buddhist temple architecture became differentiated with the formation of various sects. It spread into the hinterland and thus had an impact on the popular architecture of villages and small towns (minka) as well as on the urban middle-class house and the medieval feudal palace architecture (shoin- and sukiya-tsukuri).
However, since Chinese temple architecture consisted essentially of post-and-beam structures, even the modern urban dwelling-house did not greatly diverge from its rural precursors (Fig. 2, 3). In addition, medieval feudalism was strongly rooted in the provinces. This too proved to favor the diffusion of an urban dwelling-type which remained close to rural traditions. It was not until Western architecture was imported that the villas of western-oriented elites and the large multi-family blocks of satellite cities adopted stone and solid construction - a rupture, the full impact of which can hardly be estimated. But the extent to which Japanese building is based on the wooden post-and-beam type structure is best shown in the more recent, two-storied single family housing, which has spread widely over urban areas. Prefabricated in great series, these houses look like western brickhouses covered with roughcast. But this is only the outer appearance. Upon closer inspection, the roughcast walls of the house reveal their traditional internal wooden construction. As with the conventional type of construction and in Buddhist temple architecture, the gaps between the supporting pillars are filled with clay mixed with straw. Thus the appearance of modernity is only superficial. The construction remains true to tradition.
The plan of the house and how it is used also remain traditional. Only the kitchen and sometimes the place for eating meals are modern; the other rooms, for working, sleeping and social intercourse, remain true to tradition. The floor is covered with straw mats (tatami); the family kneels at low tables to eat and drink, and they sleep on the floor as from time immemorial. <4>
Thus living in the Japanese style broadly implies adherence to tradition, just as we would do if we dwelt in modified chalets in our central European cities. <5> The architect, as a 'creative' designer, has no part to play in the traditional housing of Japan. <6> The craftsman designs the house according to ancient traditional rules, as was the case for centuries in our mountain valleys.
But why have the Japanese clung so strongly to their conventional building and dwelling traditions? It could be said: because dwelling was intimately related to traditional customs. But what are customs? Here something plays a role which cannot be discerned on occasional visits to families and houses. The Japanese dwelling is always more or less a Shinto cult precinct and a Buddhist temple.